Should we ban pi?

should we ban pi?

Attached: brainlet.png (1692x234, 53K)

Other urls found in this thread:

blogs.sas.com/content/iml/2015/03/12/digits-of-pi.html#prettyPhoto
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz_formula_for_π
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

There no proof that the digits if pi contain all possible strings of digits

We should ban the encoding of information.
Only pure subjective thought is allowed hence fourth.

all they would need to do is calculate the probably of each single digit number, then each double digit, etc to see if pi is truly random

why has this not been done?

Because that makes no fucling sense

WRONG

t. brainlet

if pi is to be infinite and every digit is proven to have a probability of appearing then it contains all finite strings of digits

WRONG AGAIN

t. brainlet who failed his introductory stats class as well as his abstract algebra class

Post it in arvix fast, user!

It is not true that an infinite, non-repeating decimal must contain ‘every possible number combination’. The decimal 0.011000111100000111111…0.011000111100000111111… is an easy counterexample. However, if the decimal expansion of π contains every possible finite string of digits, which seems quite likely, then the rest of the statement is indeed correct. Of course, in that case it also contains numerical equivalents of every book that will never be written, among other things.

That's called the frequency and serial test, respectively.

Also, pi isn't random. You can use a formula to compute its digits to arbitrary precision. Though I think it would pass any repeat digit tests you could come up with. Here's a website with a few statistical tests done on pi.

blogs.sas.com/content/iml/2015/03/12/digits-of-pi.html#prettyPhoto

>It is not true that an infinite, non-repeating decimal must contain ‘every possible number combination’. The decimal 0.011000111100000111111…0.011000111100000111111… is an easy counterexample
you forgot to read the next part
>and every digit is proven to have a probability of appearing

thanks user Im glad to see im not too big of a brainlet with my ideas
>Of course, in that case it also contains numerical equivalents of every book that will never be written, among other things.
if it's not random larger numbers must have a higher statistical chance of error, i.e. 109801 might never follow 791 so 791109801 might have a 0 chance of appearing.

also when I say digit i mean single digit up to the n-th digit number in my quote

>then it contains all finite strings of digits
nope, you cannot just say this and pretend it means something. hasn't been proven

see and keep in mind I'm leaning more towards statistics with error margins over rigorous algebraic/analysis idea that would have 0 error

It isn't random because its value is easily defined. However, the digits themselves would be pseudo-random, so you wouldn't be able to easily identify any patterns like the ones you are describing.

If I were playing a game where I had to match a randomly generated number and I saw that the last 10 runs had 3141592653, then I'd be pretty confident that the next number is going to be 5. Or, with enough iterations, I may be able to determine that the sequence can be described as

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz_formula_for_π

or something similar with some offset. That is what would defeat the randomness, not the occurrence of digits of a certain size/repeats.

That information is not contained in the symbol "[math]\pi[/math]" it's contained in those digits if they are indeed part of the decimal expression of pi. So we shouldn't ban pi, but we should ban people from calculating the digits of pi any further, lest they discover CP. I mean, do we really need to know any more digits of pi?

It is widely believed that π is a normal number. This (or even the weaker property of being disjunctive) would imply that every possible string occurs somewhere in its expansion.

>tfw engineer
>tfw pi finally equals 3.14 by federal law

Attached: 1444521814106.jpg (540x412, 49K)

Yes, or redefine it as the ratio of a radius to circumference. Otherwise you get 2pi everywhere, rather than pi and half pi. 1 shows up everywhere in math and it inflamed my autism that pi isn’t defined to fit this convention/aspect of math. Having pi set as c/2r is as clunky as counting in halves rather than integers.

There is proof that it does not.

Some strings of digits repeat endlessly.

What if you have to build a really really big round thing?
Are you allowed to use more digits of pi, or do you have to assume they're all 0 or go to jail

>all they would need to do is calculate the probably of each single digit number
Are you retarded? This makes no god damn sense. Pi isn't a random number.

>if pi is to be infinite and every digit is proven to have a probability of appearing then it contains all finite strings of digits
Wrong.

Consider the fibonacci sequence where fib(1)=0 fib(2)=1 and fib(n)=[fib(n-1),fib(n-1)], this means the concatenation.
You can interpret this number as a decimal number, it is infinite like pi, but the sequence 00 will never appear in it.

>fib(n)=[fib(n-1),fib(n-2)]
is what I mean.

Assuming pi is normal, it contains all possible copyrighted materials and illegal contents like child porn, so should it be made illegal, along with all other normal numbers? But then, we still don't know if it's normal, so what should we do in this case, before a proof is found?

No, because using it to generate child porn is impractical. You may as well also ban random number generators.

If you were to give some range of digits in pi and some method to decode them into child porn or copywritten material, then that data would be banned, but not pi itself.

And what if I had a polynomial that has as one of its roots a string decoding child porn? Would that be illegal? If I published that polynomial, maybe with a remark it's roots are particularily interesting, would I be sentenced for distributing child porn?

>CP in pi
How many digits do I need to calculate for this?

No, we should ban Pedophiles. Also, for there to be a practical instance of CP, you have to specify the digit at which the information start and the offset (number of adjacent digits that form your image) most likely, the starting digit alone has like more than 2^n × n! bits. So, finding CP in pi digits is just a very stupid idea (also look at pifs, similar idea, same problem: store your data in digits of Pi. Likely, the start index is much larger than the actual data.